Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Alleges State Persecution in Court

A defense lawyer for Nnamdi Kanu has declared that recent court proceedings confirm a pattern of state-sponsored persecution against the IPOB leader. Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, one of Kanu’s legal representatives, stated that the October 23 session before Justice Omotosho at the Federal High Court in Abuja demonstrated systematic judicial bias. The lawyer’s strong comments follow a dramatic court appearance that saw significant developments in the long-running legal battle.

In a detailed statement released after the proceedings, Ifedi outlined multiple legal concerns that he believes demonstrate deliberate injustice. He pointed specifically to the court’s handling of jurisdictional objections and alleged violations of Kanu’s constitutional rights. These developments have raised serious questions about the fairness of the judicial process in this high-profile case.

The lawyer revisited the 2022 Court of Appeal decision that discharged and acquitted Kanu of all charges. Ifedi emphasized that this ruling has never been formally overturned by any higher court. He noted that while the Supreme Court acknowledged the government’s right to pursue a retrial, it did not explicitly order Kanu’s continued detention.

According to legal principles cited by Ifedi, the government’s failure to comply with the appellate court’s release order constitutes contempt. He referenced the English case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952), which establishes that a party in contempt cannot be heard until they obey existing court orders. This argument forms a cornerstone of the defense’s position regarding the legality of the current proceedings.

A significant point of contention emerged regarding the legal framework underpinning the trial. Ifedi explained that Kanu faces charges under the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and CEMA 2004, both of which were repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. The defense argues that trying someone under repealed legislation creates an invalid legal foundation for the entire proceeding.

As detailed in the complete version, there are several key factors to consider.

The court’s decision to address jurisdictional objections after the trial rather than before also drew sharp criticism. Ifedi described this approach as legally absurd, noting that established judicial procedure requires settling jurisdiction questions before proceeding with trial matters. This procedural sequence has become another focal point in the defense’s allegations of judicial irregularity.

Serious concerns about legal confidentiality and fair hearing rights also surfaced during the proceedings. Kanu informed the court that Department of State Services operatives monitor and record his meetings with legal counsel, potentially violating constitutional protections. The defense argues this undermines the attorney-client privilege essential for proper legal representation.

Ifedi challenged the court’s dismissal of these concerns, particularly Justice Omotosho’s suggestion that fair hearing simply meant calling witnesses. The lawyer argued that genuine fair hearing begins with unimpeded access to counsel and an impartial court, not merely participation in what he characterized as a flawed process.

The controversy extended to medical documentation presented in court. Kanu alleged that the DSS submitted a forged medical report, a claim the court reportedly declined to investigate. Instead, the judge indicated reliance on the document because Kanu’s previous lead lawyer had accepted it, a decision the defense considers deeply problematic.

The October 23 session witnessed a major development when Kanu’s entire legal team, including Senior Advocate of Nigeria Chief Kanu Agabi, formally withdrew from the case. Kanu personally confirmed this change in open court, announcing his decision to represent himself temporarily while leaving open the possibility of future legal representation.

When the court offered to assign new legal counsel, Kanu declined the assistance. This decision places additional scrutiny on how the court ensures fair trial rights for a defendant representing himself in a complex terrorism case. The situation creates new challenges for both the defense and the court moving forward.

Nnamdi Kanu has remained in detention since his controversial arrest and rendition in June 2021. Despite the 2022 appellate court ruling for his release, government authorities have maintained his custody citing national security concerns. The case continues to draw significant attention from human rights organizations and legal observers monitoring due process issues.

The latest developments add another layer of complexity to a case that has become emblematic of broader tensions around separatist movements and government response. As legal maneuvers continue, the fundamental questions about judicial independence and constitutional rights remain at the forefront of this enduring legal drama.